Hillary and the federal government are determined to ensure a "fair" and "open" election this November and will stop at nothing to reverse discrimination against "oppressed" segments of the American electorate, well at least if you live in a large swing state. This morning, the WSJ reported that the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia struck down North Carolina's voter ID law just days after we wrote about Virginia's similar effort to register 200,000 "oppressed" felons. The ruling asserts that North Carolina's law violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against low-income and minority voters, saying:
“In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.”
“Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inept remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.”
Meanwhile, Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, described the ruling as a "stinging rebuke of the state’s attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade."
While we have no doubt that the intentions of Hillary and the various federal organizations involved in this process are "pure," we do wonder why we so often see greater efforts to "protect" the "oppressed" voters in larger swing states like Virginia and North Carolina but not so much in a small states like New Hampshire, which has a very strict voter ID requirement but only 4 electoral votes and has swung Democrat in 5 out of the past 6 Presidential elections. Surely, low-income and minority voters are just as likely to be "oppressed" in New Hampshire as in North Carolina, right?
We had the welfare reform in the '90's right? Two years maximum... a friend of mine commented that all the parasites would have to be changing their names every two years. We know that the parasites vote Democrat. I'm thinking this might be one of the main reasons the Democrats fight the national id and voter id so much?
North Carolina needs to ignore the ruling and to relieve the attorney representing the State... he threw the case... a typical tactic of Marxist is too bring a case with merit on issues like this and then make sure that it is lost.
This is one very messed up country. We need an army of Trumps. I don't think one man can fix it. I've never considered myself a racist, but I'm fast becoming one.
This is a case of where we have become blind to real world and made decisions based on opinions of the party instead of what is effective. It's like a son-in-law that was to be interviewed for a promotion in a union atmosphere. When he went in for the interview the 1st question was; "Well what have you done for the Party today?" Nothing about his work, experience and ambitions but all about the party. The Judge that made the ruling in regard to ID cards discriminating never looked at the true meaning of the word. Discriminating is a form of going against or preventing an individual a do process because of something they can't do anything about. Through many processes and actions people regardless of situation, age or race can get a form of ID just like they need to get food stamps or any other item/substance. People let's get ourselves in Balance and out of discrimination.
Would SOMEONE PLEASE explain to me how asking for a 'Photo ID' of EVERYONE in order to VOTE is RACIST???? Do the other races go driving around without driver licenses? If they do, where are the COPS? If they don't, what's racist about displaying it at the Poll? Next they'll say that REGISTERING to vote is racist. After all... Such registration prevents (or at least helps to prevent) voting at several polling places. You're only ENTITLED to ONE VOTE! Of course, SOME think they're 'entitled' to the 'Vote EARLY, and OFTEN' way, but that's NOT OUR way!
These 'judges' need a lesson in CIVICS!
This Judges ruling is not about correcting the ills of racism and its effects on elections... its all about preparing for massive voter fraud. How this case was lost is another question. May I might suggest that the defense threw the case, as it certainly should have been provable... that the State has the right to require proof of ID to vote. What we have are corrupt Attorney Generals and a judicial system willing to allow this case to be deliberately thrown, in favor of their Marxist masters and Globalist allies.
They are forcing the electorate to revolt... as they have totally corrupted the only peaceful recourse for reform ... elections. These Judges don't need lessons in CIVICS, they need to experience public justice: a long drop, with a sudden stop, at the end of a rope. We are witnessing the massive, open, destruction of our Institutions of Government... for what appears to be the incitement of revolution; as the people attempt to restore law and order.
To ensure consistency, let's not require ID's for anything. .....utterly ridiculous. The judicial system is certainly not "blind". They're more politically biased then most it seems.